Flores v. Riscomp Indus. Inc
| Decision Date | 26 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D07-2921.,3D07-2921. |
| Citation | 35 So.3d 146 |
| Parties | Iris FLORES, Appellant,v.RISCOMP INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wasson & Associates and Roy D. Wasson; Greene & Sanders and Lisa A. Sanders, Miami, for appellant.
Luks, Santaniello, Perez, Petrillo, Gold and Jones, and Orestes Perez and Alison B. Marshall, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before SHEPHERD, CORTIÑAS, and SALTER, JJ.
Appellant, Iris Flores, appeals a trial court order dismissing her Third Amended Complaint with prejudice, on the ground the causes of action do not relate back to the date she filed her original complaint, one day before the statute of limitations ran on her personal injury action against Appellee, Riscomp Industries, Inc. We respectfully disagree with the decision of the trial court and reverse this case for further proceedings.
In her initial complaint, Flores alleged she slipped and fell in a Miami International Airport terminal bathroom, for which Riscomp was bound by contract to “furnish[ ], manag[e], and supervis[e] the janitorial services.” Although Flores knew before she filed the initial complaint that Riscomp had subcontracted its janitorial responsibilities for this portion of the terminal to N & K Enterprises, Inc., and that N & K employee, Anne Davis, was assigned to properly clean the restroom used by Flores, Flores did not sue or seek to add either of them to her complaint as a defendant. Nevertheless, she amended her complaint three times after her initial filing, so by the time of the dismissal with prejudice, the Third Amended Complaint sounded in four counts: Negligence of Agent, Non-delegable duty, Violation of Contractual Duty, and Negligent Selection, Supervision and Retention. Although additional allegations of fact were inserted into the complaint as it progressed through its steps, and the legal theories of recovery were supplemented and modified, the substantive factual situation remained the same as that found in the original complaint-a slip and fall on property for which Riscomp was responsible.
To survive a motion to dismiss after the statute of limitations has passed, an amended complaint must relate back to the original pleading made before the expiration of the statute of limitations. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c). To relate back, the claim must arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.” See Maraj v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 989 So.2d 682, 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also Peters v. Mitchel, 423 So.2d 983, 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Meltsner v. Aetna Cas. & Ins. Co., 177 So.2d 43, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). The doctrine is to be applied liberally to achieve its salutary ends. See C.H. v. Whitney, 987 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Ron's Quality Towing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Engle Cases
...DCA 1964), overruled on other grounds by Broward Builders Exch., Inc. v. Goehring, 231 So.2d 513 (Fla.1970) ); Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“We have articulated the test to be whether ‘the original pleading gives fair notice of the general fact situa......
-
Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc.
...of the statute of limitations in the interim will not bar the claims asserted in the amended pleading. See Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ("To survive a motion to dismiss after the statute of limitations has passed, an amended complaint must relate back......
-
Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Doe
...question of law, also reviewed de novo. Caduceus Properties, LLC v. Graney , 137 So.3d 987, 991 (Fla. 2014) ; Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc. , 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). An amended complaint raising claims for which the statute of limitations has expired can survive a motion to d......
-
Estate of Eisen v. Philip Morris United States, Inc.
...amendments to pleadings, and the relation-back doctrine, are to be liberally construed and applied. See e.g., Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding the relation-back doctrine is to be applied liberally to achieve its salutary ends, and articulating th......
-
Chapter 3-2 Statute of Limitations
...do not preclude a finding of relation back." Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2017); see also Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ("Although additional allegations of fact were inserted into the complaint as it progressed through its steps, and the lega......
-
Chapter 3-2 Statute of Limitations
...do not preclude a finding of relation back." Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2017); see also Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ("Although additional allegations of fact were inserted into the complaint as it progressed through its steps, and the lega......